I don't know that "elitist" is necessarily the right word to use when describing people unhappy with a cinematic remake that in no way resembles the original material, but your point is still valid. I would argue based on that, however, that when a book has 1,000 pages and is well-received, then I'd posit that those 1,000 pages are there for a reason. There just isn't a way to do that justice in 120 minutes worth of film - even if a picture IS worth 1,000 words. There's simply too much content to convey. That's why I argue a mini-series with a good budget might be more appropriate for something like Watchmen. Yes, I know that Watchmen doesn't have 1,000 pages, but it's a pretty dense book nonetheless.
All this arguing about it amounts to precisely nothing, however, as no one asked us to make the movie. We'll just have to wait and see what they can or can't do with it.;)
Ditto. I think the format alone (feature film vs. miniseries with a good budget) is going to make it suck, let alone your point about capable directors (or writers, for that matter). I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.
I would believe that there is more regulation, however small, happening at companies who are doing it for profit that Joe Sixpack in his garage, despite what the conspiracy theorists may think.
Same thing with champagne, although it seems that makers from the actual region of Champagne have been a little more successful defending its marketing use as an exclusive right for that region only. Still, it is consistently misidentified in the common vernacular.
If they do it for the Xbox360, then it might stand to reason that Media Center might follow? Dunno, the whole article is nothing more than speculation at this point. But it's from someone (Shane Kim) who, if anyone knew if it were a possibility/in the pipeline, it would be him.
Maybe, maybe not. Very often climber's bodies are left on Everest because it's too dangerous to retrieve them. I guess that it's no big deal if you die up there, you're not using the body anymore, so who cares what happens to it. But its gotta suck for your family.
I'm sure it's been said in this thread (I browse really high [low?]), and has definitely been said anytime anyone in here brings up "scary" games, but System Shock 2 did the same thing, brilliantly. Some scary stuff in that game.
Re:Efficient use of built-in features isn't stupid
on
Google Zeitgeist 2008
·
· Score: 1
Please - most of the people in here are still using Lynx (on purpose, just ask them why) to browse teh intartubes...
I have to agree with everything the parent said. I spent about an hour in there, and came out on the other side wondering - "why?" Other than people wandering all over the place, I saw a "bowling alley" with just enough people in it to fill all the available games, a mall with stores trying to sell me virtual stuff for real money, and a movie theater full of people calling each other faggots and n*ggers over voice chat. I saw almost no real "socializing", other than some dance party happening off the central plaza, which was mostly about a female avatar being molested by male avatars that I assume are controlled by 12-year olds (or maybe not... 0_0).
Of course I should care. But I'm also a realist. I know that if I want to play Day of the Tentacle (or worse, some *truly* obscure game from a zillion years ago), I'm going to have to jump through some hoops for it. Just like if I want to drive a '54 Ford. I can't reasonably expect to find parts for it anymore without some effort - and Ford is still in business (for now). There's idealism, and there's realism. I try not to kid myself into thinking my $50 buys me anything other than a disc, a box, a manual (usually), and maybe a year's worth of support, should I need it.
I'm not defending the use of DRM. What I am saying is that we, as the consumer, can make choices - exactly what you're saying. When you make choices, they are usually done with a reasonable amount of information - that includes the choice to buy a game with DRM, and face the possibility that it might not work a few years down the road. That said, I haven't bought a game yet (other than a few things on Steam) where, if the company goes under, I feel I'll be screwed over and not able to play the game. But so far, that isn't BECAUSE of the DRM, it's because whatever games those might be don't interest me. *shrug*
Hell, what point was I trying to make? Getting old sucks...;)
I was going to post something similar. No matter where he's looking to cut (and as a "tax and spend Democrat", he deserves praise for doing so given the state of our economy), people are going to freak out. I'm not going to say the Ares and Orion programs are/aren't worth it, but when your economy's in the shitter, let's focus on the basics.
How DRM affects Spore in terms of "getting online" I don't know, the game holds no interest for me. DRM preventing people from playing online multiplayer in GTA IV (legitimately OR illegitimately) will cause some consternation, I guarantee. I don't play online multiplayer in those kinds of games (getting virtually teabagged and having homophobic profanity hurled at me by 12 year olds just isn't my thing), but I know it's a pretty big component for many people.
I don't think anyone is arguing that DRM is a good idea, per se. I know the parent to your post (child to my original) is alluding to that, but I think more to the point is that in it's current state, I would argue that most COMPANIES (as opposed to us consumers) don't see anything wrong. Unfortunately, when you look at it from their perspective, a handful of nerds whining about DRM is an amusing story over vodka shots being dispensed from the penis of an ice sculpture at the latest company bingefest when they sell a bazillion copies of the latest and greatest in the tired Madden/NHL/NBA/whatever franchise. I don't think there is much debate going on at EA, Rockstar, Activision, etc. for most of their games about whether or not they SHOULD put in DRM, more debate is probably had about WHICH they should put in.
Your point about a game not working years later is a good one; however, I'm also reasonably sure that most game companies don't give a shit about that. They got your $50/$60, it's on to the next sale. Only games where a subscription model is in effect would be concerned with that (most periodic fee-based MMORPGs, for example). We, as the consumers, have these ideals that we seem to think that we're entitled to breakfast the next morning after a game company has had their way with us. It simply isn't true. SHOULD they provide some modicum of support YEARS after a game has left the shelves? Sure. WILL they? Highly doubtful. Nobody gives a shit that I periodically want to play Anachronox, or Fallout 1/2, or Deus Ex, etc. They just aren't thinking that far backward, so they certainly aren't thinking that far forward. They think in quarters, not years.
Well, technically, if NO ONE bought the game, and it was evident that DRM was the reason why, then I bet it *would* solve the problem.
However, as we've "discussed" (I use the term loosely) ad nauseum here on/., most people have no idea what DRM is, and it doesn't cause most of THEM any problem. They make up the vast majority of people purchasing the game, so until such time that it TRULY becomes draconian (I think using that term might be engaging in a bit of hyperbole), they'll continue putting this shit in their games. Period.
Before I'm labelled as a corporate shill, note that I do not think DRM works. It does NOT prevent piracy, this much we know. But they still SELL a bazillion copies of the latest blockbuster game, so they must be doing something right, in there minds, right? I also think that the number of people that it REALLY causes problems for is pretty small compared to the number of copies sold on any given game. People who think they can bitch loudly on a company web forum and sign useless online petitions are deluding themselves in how much they think that companies give a rat's ass how much they piss an moan. Not until something happens on a truly epic scale (see the first sentence of this post) will they cease putting DRM in their games, and truly explore alternate means of mitigating piracy.
Yes, there are games where it's pretty bad, and yes I've seen the video on Youtube, and I think that's ridiculous. But I also think that companies like EA and Rockstar are (to engage in hyperbole) filling their swimming pools with cash, and they can only reasonably conclude that it's because they are selling a shitload of games due to the fact that DRM works (again, in their minds).
Re:Huh? Where's the most important piece of news?
on
10 Years of Half-Life
·
· Score: 1
Last line of the summary?
Christ, I know people don't RTFA here, but man, you didn't even RTFS!
Slashdot Mirror
LOL, touché.
I don't know that "elitist" is necessarily the right word to use when describing people unhappy with a cinematic remake that in no way resembles the original material, but your point is still valid. I would argue based on that, however, that when a book has 1,000 pages and is well-received, then I'd posit that those 1,000 pages are there for a reason. There just isn't a way to do that justice in 120 minutes worth of film - even if a picture IS worth 1,000 words. There's simply too much content to convey. That's why I argue a mini-series with a good budget might be more appropriate for something like Watchmen. Yes, I know that Watchmen doesn't have 1,000 pages, but it's a pretty dense book nonetheless.
;)
All this arguing about it amounts to precisely nothing, however, as no one asked us to make the movie. We'll just have to wait and see what they can or can't do with it.
Ditto. I think the format alone (feature film vs. miniseries with a good budget) is going to make it suck, let alone your point about capable directors (or writers, for that matter). I don't know how you can cram that entire graphic novel into a 2-hour movie.
I would believe that there is more regulation, however small, happening at companies who are doing it for profit that Joe Sixpack in his garage, despite what the conspiracy theorists may think.
Very true... look what these guys did!
Pretty much my thoughts exactly when I read the article. There are markets for both, and they are not exclusive.
Same thing with champagne, although it seems that makers from the actual region of Champagne have been a little more successful defending its marketing use as an exclusive right for that region only. Still, it is consistently misidentified in the common vernacular.
If they do it for the Xbox360, then it might stand to reason that Media Center might follow? Dunno, the whole article is nothing more than speculation at this point. But it's from someone (Shane Kim) who, if anyone knew if it were a possibility/in the pipeline, it would be him.
While I admit I can't prove that they won't, can you prove that they will?
While you guys had me on pins and needles waiting for the next clever post, I think I'm going to leave.
Maybe, maybe not. Very often climber's bodies are left on Everest because it's too dangerous to retrieve them. I guess that it's no big deal if you die up there, you're not using the body anymore, so who cares what happens to it. But its gotta suck for your family.
I'm sure it's been said in this thread (I browse really high [low?]), and has definitely been said anytime anyone in here brings up "scary" games, but System Shock 2 did the same thing, brilliantly. Some scary stuff in that game.
Please - most of the people in here are still using Lynx (on purpose, just ask them why) to browse teh intartubes...
I have to agree with everything the parent said. I spent about an hour in there, and came out on the other side wondering - "why?" Other than people wandering all over the place, I saw a "bowling alley" with just enough people in it to fill all the available games, a mall with stores trying to sell me virtual stuff for real money, and a movie theater full of people calling each other faggots and n*ggers over voice chat. I saw almost no real "socializing", other than some dance party happening off the central plaza, which was mostly about a female avatar being molested by male avatars that I assume are controlled by 12-year olds (or maybe not... 0_0).
Of course I should care. But I'm also a realist. I know that if I want to play Day of the Tentacle (or worse, some *truly* obscure game from a zillion years ago), I'm going to have to jump through some hoops for it. Just like if I want to drive a '54 Ford. I can't reasonably expect to find parts for it anymore without some effort - and Ford is still in business (for now). There's idealism, and there's realism. I try not to kid myself into thinking my $50 buys me anything other than a disc, a box, a manual (usually), and maybe a year's worth of support, should I need it.
;)
I'm not defending the use of DRM. What I am saying is that we, as the consumer, can make choices - exactly what you're saying. When you make choices, they are usually done with a reasonable amount of information - that includes the choice to buy a game with DRM, and face the possibility that it might not work a few years down the road. That said, I haven't bought a game yet (other than a few things on Steam) where, if the company goes under, I feel I'll be screwed over and not able to play the game. But so far, that isn't BECAUSE of the DRM, it's because whatever games those might be don't interest me. *shrug*
Hell, what point was I trying to make? Getting old sucks...
I was going to post something similar. No matter where he's looking to cut (and as a "tax and spend Democrat", he deserves praise for doing so given the state of our economy), people are going to freak out. I'm not going to say the Ares and Orion programs are/aren't worth it, but when your economy's in the shitter, let's focus on the basics.
Well, that's what I get for browsing at such a high threshold. :)
It plays fine here... *shrug*
I am intrigued by your ideas, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. ;-)
Sort of wrong on the first one (more of a community-based DLC), definitely wrong on the second.
How DRM affects Spore in terms of "getting online" I don't know, the game holds no interest for me. DRM preventing people from playing online multiplayer in GTA IV (legitimately OR illegitimately) will cause some consternation, I guarantee. I don't play online multiplayer in those kinds of games (getting virtually teabagged and having homophobic profanity hurled at me by 12 year olds just isn't my thing), but I know it's a pretty big component for many people.
I don't think anyone is arguing that DRM is a good idea, per se. I know the parent to your post (child to my original) is alluding to that, but I think more to the point is that in it's current state, I would argue that most COMPANIES (as opposed to us consumers) don't see anything wrong. Unfortunately, when you look at it from their perspective, a handful of nerds whining about DRM is an amusing story over vodka shots being dispensed from the penis of an ice sculpture at the latest company bingefest when they sell a bazillion copies of the latest and greatest in the tired Madden/NHL/NBA/whatever franchise. I don't think there is much debate going on at EA, Rockstar, Activision, etc. for most of their games about whether or not they SHOULD put in DRM, more debate is probably had about WHICH they should put in.
Your point about a game not working years later is a good one; however, I'm also reasonably sure that most game companies don't give a shit about that. They got your $50/$60, it's on to the next sale. Only games where a subscription model is in effect would be concerned with that (most periodic fee-based MMORPGs, for example). We, as the consumers, have these ideals that we seem to think that we're entitled to breakfast the next morning after a game company has had their way with us. It simply isn't true. SHOULD they provide some modicum of support YEARS after a game has left the shelves? Sure. WILL they? Highly doubtful. Nobody gives a shit that I periodically want to play Anachronox, or Fallout 1/2, or Deus Ex, etc. They just aren't thinking that far backward, so they certainly aren't thinking that far forward. They think in quarters, not years.
Well, technically, if NO ONE bought the game, and it was evident that DRM was the reason why, then I bet it *would* solve the problem.
/., most people have no idea what DRM is, and it doesn't cause most of THEM any problem. They make up the vast majority of people purchasing the game, so until such time that it TRULY becomes draconian (I think using that term might be engaging in a bit of hyperbole), they'll continue putting this shit in their games. Period.
However, as we've "discussed" (I use the term loosely) ad nauseum here on
Before I'm labelled as a corporate shill, note that I do not think DRM works. It does NOT prevent piracy, this much we know. But they still SELL a bazillion copies of the latest blockbuster game, so they must be doing something right, in there minds, right? I also think that the number of people that it REALLY causes problems for is pretty small compared to the number of copies sold on any given game. People who think they can bitch loudly on a company web forum and sign useless online petitions are deluding themselves in how much they think that companies give a rat's ass how much they piss an moan. Not until something happens on a truly epic scale (see the first sentence of this post) will they cease putting DRM in their games, and truly explore alternate means of mitigating piracy.
Yes, there are games where it's pretty bad, and yes I've seen the video on Youtube, and I think that's ridiculous. But I also think that companies like EA and Rockstar are (to engage in hyperbole) filling their swimming pools with cash, and they can only reasonably conclude that it's because they are selling a shitload of games due to the fact that DRM works (again, in their minds).
Last line of the summary?
Christ, I know people don't RTFA here, but man, you didn't even RTFS!
I'm as big a Python fan as the next, but let it not.
Extra-Vehicular (as in, outside the vehicle) Activity